Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 633–644 | Cite as

Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm

  • Joan Iverson Nassauer
  • Paul Opdam
Perspectives

Abstract

Landscape ecological science has produced knowledge about the relationship between landscape pattern and landscape processes, but it has been less effective in transferring this knowledge to society. We argue that design is a common ground for scientists and practitioners to bring scientific knowledge into decision making about landscape change, and we therefore propose that the pattern–process paradigm should be extended to include a third part: design. In this context, we define design as any intentional change of landscape pattern for the purpose of sustainably providing ecosystem services while recognizably meeting societal needs and respecting societal values. We see both the activity of design and the resulting design pattern as opportunities for science: as a research method and as topic of research. To place design within landscape ecology science, we develop an analytic framework based on the concept of knowledge innovation, and we apply the framework to two cases in which design has been used as part of science. In these cases, design elicited innovation in society and in science: the design concept was incorporated in societal action to improve landscape function, and it also initiated scientific questions about pattern–process relations. We conclude that landscape design created collaboratively by scientists and practitioners in many disciplines improves the impact of landscape science in society and enhances the saliency and legitimacy of landscape ecological scientific knowledge.

Keywords

Adaptation Landscape change Interdisciplinary Transdisciplinary Innovation Sustainable development Landscape planning 

References

  1. Agrawal A (2005) Environmentality: technologies of government and the making of subjects. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahern J (2006) Theories, methods and strategies for sustainable landscape planning. In: Tress B, Tress G, Fry G, Opdam P (eds) From landscape research to landscape planning. Aspects of integration, education and application. Springer, Dordrecht, NL, pp 119–131Google Scholar
  3. Amidon DM (1997) Innovation strategy for the knowledge economy: the ken awakening. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Azerrad JM, Nilon CH (2006) An evaluation of agency conservation guidelines to better address planning efforts by local government. Landsc Urban Plan 77:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bal D, Reijnen R (1997) Nature policy practice: efforts, effects, expectations and changes. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety, Ede, the Netherlands (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  6. Bal D, Beije HM, Fellinger M, Haveman R, Van Opstal AJFM, Van Zadelhoff FJ (2001) Handbook nature target types. MANFS Expertise Centre Report number 2001/020, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety, Ede, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. Broekmeyer M, Steingröver EG (eds) (2001) Handbook of robust corridor planning and design. Alterra, Wageningen, The Netherlands (in Dutch, http://www.ontwerpenmetnatuur.wur.nl)
  8. Brody SD (2003) Implementing the principles of ecosystem management through local land use planning. Popul Environ 24:511–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cash DW et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Nat Acad Sci 100(14):8086–8091Google Scholar
  10. Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. PNAS 100:8059–8061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doering OC, Nassauer JI, Kling CL, Scavia D (2007) Agricultural policy choices. In: Nassauer JI, Santelmann MV, Scavia D (eds) From the Corn Belt to the Gulf: societal and environmental implications of alternative agricultural futures. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, pp 185–200Google Scholar
  12. Dvir R, Pasher E (2004) Innovation engines for knowledge cities: an innovation ecology perspective. J Knowledge Manage 8:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fabos JG, Ryan RL (2004) International Greenway planning: an introduction. Landsc Urban Plan 68:143–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fry G, Tress B, Tress G (2007) Integrative landscape research: facts and challenges. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp 246–268Google Scholar
  15. Gobster P, Nassauer J, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22:959–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Golley FB (1987) Introducing landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 1(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Healy P (1996) The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environ Plann B: Plann Des 23:217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hobbs RJ (2002) Habitat networks and biological conservation. In: Gutzwiller KJ (ed) Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 150–170Google Scholar
  19. Horlick-Jones T, Sime J (2004) Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity. Futures 36:441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jackson SA (2005). The nexus: where science meets society. Science 310(5754):1634–1639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson BR, Campbell R (1999) Ecology and participation in landscape-based planning within the Pacific Northwest. Policy Stud J 27:502–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin GC, Grubler A, Huntley B, Jager J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B III, O’Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Campbell BM (2006) An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conserv Biol 20:408–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lammers GW, Zadelhoff FJ (1996) The Dutch national ecological network. In: Nowicki P, Bennett G, Middleton D, Rientjes S, Wolters R (eds) ECNC Publications series on man and nature (vol 1): perspectives on ecological networks. European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg Netherlands, pp 101–113Google Scholar
  25. Liu J et al (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MANFS (1990) Nature Policy Plan 1990. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety, The Hague, The Netherlands. http://www.mnp.nl/mnc/i-en-1298.html
  27. MANFS (2001) Nature Policy Plan 2001: nature for people, people for nature. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety, The Hague, The Netherlands. http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640408&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL)
  28. Nassauer JI (1992) The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landsc Ecol 6:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nassauer JI (1997) Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. In: Nassauer JI (ed) Placing nature: culture in landscape ecology. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 65–83Google Scholar
  30. Nassauer JI, Corry RC (2004) Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 19:343–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nassauer JI, Corry RC, Cruse RM (2002) The landscape in 2025: alternative landscape future scenarios as a means to consider agricultural policy. J Soil Water Conserv 57:44A–53AGoogle Scholar
  32. Nassauer JI, Corry RC, Dowdell JA (2007a). Farmers’ perceptions. In: Nassauer JI, Santelmann MV, Scavia D (eds) From the Corn Belt to the Gulf: societal and environmental implications of alternative agricultural futures. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, pp 67–77Google Scholar
  33. Nassauer JI, Santelmann MV, Scavia D (eds) (2007b). From the Corn Belt to the Gulf: societal and environmental implications of alternative agricultural futures. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, pp 223Google Scholar
  34. Nowotny H (2005) Science and society: high- and low-cost realities for science and society. Science 308:1117–1118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Blackwell, Malden MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Opdam P (2002) Assessing the conservation potential of habitat networks. In: Gutzwiller KJ (ed) Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 381–404Google Scholar
  37. Opdam P, Foppen R, Reijnen R, Schotman A (1995) The landscape ecological approach in bird conservation, integrating the metapopulation concept into spatial planning. Ibis 137:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Opdam P, Verboom J, Pouwels R (2003) Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landsc Ecol 18:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Opdam P, Steingröver E, Van Rooij S (2006) Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:322–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Palmer M et al (2004a) Ecological science and sustainability for a crowded planet. Ecological Society of America, p 55Google Scholar
  41. Palmer M, Bernhardt E, Chornesky E, Collins S, Dobson A, Duke C, Gold B, Jacobsen R, Klingsland S, Kranz R, Mappin M, Martinez ML, Michelli F, Morse J, Pace M, Pascual M, Palumbi S, Reichman OJ, Townsend A, Turner M (2004b) Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 304:1251–1252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pelk MLH, Van Etteger R, Bal D, Wieman E (1999) Quality by connectivity: why, where and how? Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety. The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  43. Prendergast JR, Quinn RM, Lawton JH (1999) The gaps between theory and practice in selecting nature reserves. Conserv Biol 13:484–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pullin AS, Knight TM, Stone DA, Charman K (2004) Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making?. Biol Conserv 119:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Santelmann MV, White D, Freemark K, Nassauer JI, Danielson BJ (1997) Modeling effects of alternative landscape design and management on water quality and biodiversity in midwest agricultural watersheds, US-EPA STAR grants program (Water and Watersheds, grant #R-825335-01) Google Scholar
  46. Santelmann MV et al (2004) Assessing alternative futures for agriculture in the U.S. Corn Belt Landsc Ecol 19:357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scavia D, Nassauer JI, (2007) Policy insights from alternative futures and integrated assessments. In: Nassauer JI, Santelmann MV, Scavia D (eds) From the Corn Belt to the Gulf: societal and environmental implications of alternative agricultural futures. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  48. Termorshuizen J, Opdam P, Van den Brink A (2007) Incorporating ecological sustainability in landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 79:374–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Theobald DM, Hobbs NT, Bearly T, Zack JA, Shenk T, Riebsame WE (2000) Incorporating biological information in local land use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning. Landsc Ecol 15:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tress B, Tress G (2001). Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. Landsc Urban Plan 57(3–4): 143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. U.S. Green Building Council (2007) Leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) for neighborhood development. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. Verboom J, Foppen R, Chardon P, Opdam P, Luttikhuizen P (2001) Introducing the key patch approach for habitat networks with persistent populations: an example for marshland bird. Biol Conserv 100:89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam P, ter Braak CJF (2001) Towards ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am Nat 157:24–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vos C, Opdam P, Steingröver E, Reijnen R (2007) Transferring ecological knowledge to landscape planning: a design method for robust corridors. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp 227–245Google Scholar
  55. Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landsc Ecol 17:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wu J, Hobbs R (2007) Landscape ecology: the state-of-the-science. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp 271–287Google Scholar
  57. Zube E (1986) The advance of ecology. Landsc Architecture 76:58–67Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Land Use Planning & Alterra Landscape CenterWageningen University CenterWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations